Posted
by
Zonk
on Tuesday August 14, 2007 @03:05PM
from the it-was-broken-when-we-found-it dept.

narramissic writes "Late last month a wireless prototype submitted by Microsoft and other members of the White Spaces Coalition was rejected by the FCC because it interfered with cable channels. Microsoft, though, claims that the device was malfunctioning when the FCC tested it. From the article: 'In a letter to the FCC Monday, Microsoft said the scanner in one of two prototypes was damaged and "operated at a severely degraded level. The damaged scanner accounted for the entire discrepancy between the Microsoft and the FCC bench test data," said Ed Thomas, a consultant for the White Spaces Coalition and a former chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.'"

If a malfunction results in a failure of the local TV signal rather than resulting in a failure of the device, the FCCs decision is the right one.Devices are expected to fail. Given a long enough timeframe, ALL of them fail.

Another uninformed piece of FUD.

This was a prototype to prove the concept of sharing the spectrum that is currently assigned for TV with data. The FCC doesn't allow that at all, so a first step is to convince them that it _can_ be done. Of course they haven't built a full consumer produc

This is the first time I've heard of how Microsoft's device works. Their design totally sucks. Why not just use a table of known FCC broadcasting stations for your area and then figure out that channels are free based upon how far you are from those?

Well, given that Microsoft never says anything but lies, we can assume the device was functioning perfectly when it failed the tests. (Is that a weird sentence or what?)However, what is amusing is that Microsoft will lie ABOUT THEIR OWN PRODUCTS FAILING A TEST JUST TO BE LYING! I mean, if you were trying to win somebody over, would you admit the product you sent for the test was screwed up? Like it gives somebody confidence in the product maybe actually working if it WASN'T screwed up?

A Microsoft PR guy and a linux kernel developer are standing at the entrance to a cave, but you don't know which is which. The cave contains either a dragon or a treasure. The MS guy always lies. The kernel developer never says anything that you could understand. Think of one question that you can ask which will tell you whether to enter the cave.

Unless I've been understanding this wrong, this thing wasn't just a Microsoft prototype. It was submitted by several companies, so why is Microsoft the only one who is questioning it? Are the others backing Microsoft in their complains? Do the others not care enough? Or is there something more nefarious going on - do the others think that the FCC's claims are true?

Microsoft is, as I understand it, representing the interests of all of the companies involved, here (including Google). It makes sense. Microsoft has some of the best lobbying capabilities and has had the most success in managing policy. These companies need a strong front since they're going up against the cable/telco companies.

Unless I've been understanding this wrong, this thing wasn't just a Microsoft prototype. It was submitted by several companies, so why is Microsoft the only one who is questioning it? Are the others backing Microsoft in their complains? Do the others not care enough? Or is there something more nefarious going on - do the others think that the FCC's claims are true?

It is always the same. Microsoft against the rest of the world. I quest they are now working on submiting a new standard for radio waves to t

None of your 'possibilities' suggested you read the article. MS MADE the device that was tested. The coalition is made of people who want to use the channels and also make other devices similar to MS's or devices that use it.

Do MS design or make the hardware though, or do they simply give some requirements to a subcontractor who then builds the device? I understood that Microsoft's involvement with hardware only went as far as designing the box it came in (unless there's an OS to write, such as for the XBox)

I heard they tested the thing till they were blue in the f... uh screen.SeriouslyThe grab for spectrum right now is obscene the way the FCC sells it (since when do they "own" it? I thought they were commisioned to police the airwaves not auction them),and the way the various companies are attempting to grab it via their lobbys and "influence".I would rather have a honest government (they stay bought), instead of waffle depending on the bribe of today's higest bidder and next week a better bribe makes t

There is a perception amongst many that white spaces are unused. That is not always correct. These white spaces can serve a purpose.

In some cases, RF automatic tunig circuits need the white spaces as a way to distinguish the signal envelope (ie. the "edges" of the signal it is tracking). If you pack the white spaces with RF then those edges get blurred and some AFC circuitry will malfunction.

Heaven forbid, but Microsoft should be working with Google and Yahoo to pool their cash for some of that FCC spectrum being auctioned. Then they can simply put these devices on their own channels and be done with it, not having to play around with "unregulated" spectrum!

Some 3rd world countries have better wireless broadband access than we do.

Well, they should. For a small number of users and no existing infrastructure, wireless is completely superior. However, we have copper lines to almost every house. We get broadband to the home, and wireless is only as good as necessary between the billion or so copper lines run all around. The only places with successful wireless are the places where the copper wires aren't being used effectively for high-speed Internet. You can't put the population of NYC on wireless broadband. The density will not allow everyone to have broadband speeds.

You'll have to pardon me. I was using the "new" definition. If you think that 128k down (and no minimum up) is "broadband" then yes, China is doing a great job with it. However, having been to Beijing and having watched someone with a wireless data card pull out the card and plug into the wires, I would say that wireless broadband is a complete and utter failure, if the goal is to be as good as wired. Yes, generic articles with no data and apparently written by people that have never been to China look

Actually, putting areas of dense population on wireless broadband is in theory quite possible... with good bandwidth too. One possibility is a mesh network with intelligent AP/routers that update routes in real time. Though the theory is there, I don't presently know of any area where this has been successfully executed. I would tend to agree with you that it may not make sense where there is significant wired infrastructure.

No, it is not. Given the areas reserved for cellular and unlicensed communication, it is impossible to provide 2 Mbps up and down simultaniously to NYC. There isn't enough spectrum and the interference between cells for such a dense area would cause interference when the cell sizes are shrunk to the necessary size. It can't be done. It can't be close to being done. The only possible way would be to have pico-cells and using 60GHz spectrum (the kind that

The real solution is to tell our government officials that the purpose of the government is NOT to establish and protect monopolies, and that it's really hard to claim you support free market capitalism while failing to prosecute companies that work in concert to shut out any potential competition.This idea that we have to have behemoth companies to exist in the world is nonsense. We need a really free market with fair access to all. It is very rare to have a huge company do anything really innovative. The

detected during the testing? And if it was, why was the test not scrapped? This is dumb, when you do testing to certify, calibrate or evaluate something you make sure that the unit is functioning 100% before you begin. At least that's the way it's been everywhere I've ever worked.

While I agree with you, the fact that a malfunctioning unit could cause a major disruption in service to those around you is still a significant problem. The odds of every device shipping (however many thousands or millions) without a flaw is pretty slim. That being said, more work will need to be done to prevent such an outage should there be a flaw or a malfunction before it passes the FCC.

For the record, I am no fan of either MS or the FCC, but in this case, I would probably side with the FCC.

Indeed. Having worked for a company that was the victim of a seriously malfunctioning pager transmitter tower that suddenly started spraying interference over our whole spectrum, I can tell you right now that dealing with such a malfunction ought to be part of the demonstration process, and if your demo box causes unintended but significant interference, then you shouldn't be ready for primetime.

Chances are it wasn't a defect in the prototype, but instead one in the design. But if they could excuse the behavior as being a defective unit, they might still push to get a marginal design through.I suspect that the problem relates to the unit not properly detecting frequencies that it can use without causing interference. At U.H.F. frequencies it is not uncommon to hit dead/weak spots in signal strength due to reflections. Sometimes moving a few inches makes a big difference. Many people that have t

This is so silly. Why "detect" who is broadcasting if it cannot be done reliably? We should instead depend upon FCC radio transmitting tower locations (for licensed users) and just have a GPS and do a bit of math to know what signals are free to use.

Because it matches their plan of operation all along. Microsoft has been pretty good at shipping things that break. Windows, in theory, should be a pretty stout and secure operating system but we have seen it break many times over and cause interference all over the place.

It is nothing new here except that MS thinks they can produce something that won't break in the future.

I would imagine it's the applicant's responsibility to supply a functioning prototype. Otherwise it's like retroactively claiming you were feeling unwell when you sat your finals and didn't get the grade you were hoping for.

The whole point of FCC testing is to confirm the device works to specifications and doesn't violate FCC rules regarding emissions. It failed, and Microsoft needs to submit their design again. To imply the FCC was somehow faulty as is suggested by the "White Spaces" industry wag man (who also is one of those in-and-out regulatory-to-industry guys) is classic FUD.
Fix your prototype, MS, and the FCC will certify it.

I don't know. That Microsoft's picked prototype did exactly what broadcasters feared, but is quickly explained with "oops, it malfunctioned!" seems to prove the broadcasters' point with a double underline.

They submitted a unit, that when tested failed. Why would you waste time trying a second device? If the second passed the tests, the overall result must still be inconclusive since the first unit failed.The only case I can think of in which the backup could sensibly be used, would be if some other defect prevented the testing of the first unit e.g. it was physically damaged, had a flat battery or couldn't start testing for some other non-performance related reason.

Yes, that's right. If one sample meets the limit and another does not, how would the test tech know which one was truly defective? In the case of interference testing, a broken product often seems better than the working one (it's likely to have fewer or weaker signals making noise, hence lower interference measurements). The unit was tested as received, and that sample's performance determines "pass" or "fail".

The nature of certification tests is that the test sample represents all products shipped. It's t

There is some conspiracy to the story as the prior two posters have pointed out. Also, notice that this particular article was cherry-picked as only mentioning Microsoft - the coalition also involves Google, Dell and others. If that were presented, then who would you be rooting for? (OMG! Its google! It must be teh good!)

I'd still be rooting for the FCC, which enforces the law. Radio spectrum is precious and already suffers enough interference. The FCC already caved on some rules when they approved the horrific broadband-over-power lines.

I'm not a fan of BPL (as an amateur radio/shortwave enthusiast) but according to what I've read the FCC had a backup device in case the test article failed, which Microsoft claims it did... however the FCC did not even attempt to use the backup for analysis! And there have been rumors of pandering to the existing TV service (which won't exist in 2 years... or will it?) again, its a mess and sometimes things just look like the FCC are stacking the cards in profit's way instead of progress'. All I'm saying i

The whole point of FCC testing is to confirm the device works to specifications and doesn't violate FCC rules regarding emissions. It failed, and Microsoft needs to submit their design again. To imply the FCC was somehow faulty as is suggested by the "White Spaces" industry wag man (who also is one of those in-and-out regulatory-to-industry guys) is classic FUD. Fix your prototype, MS, and the FCC will certify it.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. This has nothing to do with device certific

Hey Mr. Know-It-All, I'd like to know more. All I did was read the article. If you know more, help us all out by linking to some more info.
"The FCC on July 31 said a wireless prototype submitted by Microsoft and other members of the White Spaces Coalition interfered with cable television channels and therefore would not be licensed for use. The White Spaces Coalition, including Google Inc., Dell Inc., Intel Corp. and other tech vendors, wants the FCC to approve wireless devices that operate in the so-ca

While this does sound like a good idea, to weaken the apparent strangle hold the broadcasting companies have on the FCC, I'm just not sure if I really want MS to loosen that grip. After all, what's better? Letting MS control the FCC or the broadcast companies? I guess it's a start though.

While this does sound like a good idea, to weaken the apparent strangle hold the broadcasting companies have on the FCC, I'm just not sure if I really want MS to loosen that grip. After all, what's better? Letting MS control the FCC or the broadcast companies? I guess it's a start though.

I'd rather let MS control the broadcast companies. Then we'd get less crappy soap operas, and more crappy tech-weenie shows. That's probably not what you meant to ask in your question, though. Between you and me, as pr

One might argue that *approving* these devices would prop up the stranglehold cable companies have on the consumer...These were preliminary tests of what the FCC called "Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices". "White Space" referring to unused TV channels. What the FCC was testing was the ability of these devices to determine that a given TV channel was unused. Two devices from different manufacturers were tested. (the FCC documents don't specify which device is Microsoft's) They were not complete syste

I would like to see a few tech-oriented companies, including Microsoft, involved in this. Almost anything/anyone who could break the stranglehold of current wireless service providers is good in my view.

With any product that can disrupt other services - in this instance, taking out your neighbor's TV reception or data link if the "scanner" doesn't detect the "channel" is already in use - the product needs to be designed to "fail safe."

In other words, the device should self-test critical functions, and if any do not meet requirements, the device needs to indicate the failure AND NOT TRANSMIT.

Basic rational design.

If the "scanner" fails to detect an "in use" channel properly (self test to ensure it does), the transmitter shouldn't just push ahead and transmit, it should alarm and go to standby.

If the device can just go ahead and transmit, as Microsoft's did, the FCC is absolutely right: The device (and possibly service) should not be allowed.

In other words, the device should self-test critical functions, and if any do not meet requirements, the device needs to indicate the failure AND NOT TRANSMIT.

Dead on. But:

If the "scanner" fails to detect an "in use" channel properly (self test to ensure it does), the transmitter shouldn't just push ahead and transmit, it should alarm and go to standby.

Which breaks if you bring it up in an environment that doesn't have any "in use" channels to detect. Like in a remote environment (such as my place in a lightly-settled section of Nevada desert) which has zero detectable TV signals and virtually no daytime broadcast radio - exactly the sort of place you'd want to "wire for broadband" with wireless.

IMHO the right algorithm is not an up-front self-test, but a CYA check during turn-up:
- Check for in-use channel. If not found:
- Momentarily make a VERY SMALL amount of signal of your own and see if you detect that, to check the detector. If you do:
- THEN turn on normal transmitter power.

This is Microsoft trying not to accuse FCC Commissioners of outright sabotage, though this is likely what happened. It's very convenient that the prototype "broke" in exactly the way the opponents of the "white space" initiative wanted. The same interests (TV Broadcasters) that heavily bribed* the FCC Commissioners. Commissioners also had a backup they chose not to use. An earlier (extremely similar) Philips device worked perfectly.This is not the "MS tech doesn't work" story the submitter tried to spin it

The scanner on one of the prototypes was broken, nobody seriously disputes this. But another identical prototype (identical except for being broken) was available and even tested, but the FCC CHOSE not to use the test performed on the non-broken prototype. And remember, the Philips prototype worked perfectly. Even if the MS device

Right, because of course the other companies involved simply decided that the FCC is all-wise, and have no interest in the decision being appealed. It's utterly beyond the realm of possibility that they collectively decided to use the member with the best PR machine to protest the decision. This is obviously Microsoft branching out on its own hook against the wishes of the other members of the coalition in an evil plot to TAKE OVER THE WORLD, MUAHAHAHA!!

with the cable frequencies. Had they not seen it, Microsoft could have pumped a few million into promoting this noisy spec to flood the market with devices laying waste to clean cable signals. Then, its IPTV business starts looking a whole lot better. With an end to end tie-in of Microsoft software in the US IPTV( UltimateTV? ) market, Microsoft gets to own the channels like they currently own the PC OEM channels. Doesn't that sound like fun?

with the cable frequencies. Had they not seen it, Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung could have pumped a few million into promoting this noisy spec to flood the market with devices laying waste to clean cable signals. Then, Microsoft's, Google's, HP's, Intel's, Philips', Dell's, Earthlink's, and Samsung's IPTV business starts looking a whole lot better. With an end to end tie-in of Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung software in the US IPTV( U

that's great only Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung don't have any advantage in screwing up cable reception. But Microsoft does.Have you not seen Microsoft join various boards, organizations, and/or committees and constantly nitpick the process, technology, people, etc? There's an old but easy to read book out called "StartUp" which gives a hint as to how Microsoft does business. Meanwhile, back in Redmond, their engineers are busy hacking together their version which onl

Rather than go through all the replies to this story making fun of Microsoft, saying the FCC should wait for SP1, accusing Microsoft of trying to get some sort of patent on the device so they can PWN TEH AIRWAVEZ OH NOES XBOX HUEG LOL!!!eleventy-one! et cetera, et cetera, maybe it will be more effective to point out something the summary only briefly alludes to:This is not a Microsoft initiative. This device was submitted by the White Spaces Coalition, which consists of Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips

This device by MANY ORGANIZATIONS interfered with cable TV reception. This device by MANY ORGANIZATIONS was said to be faulty by a leading member of MANY ORGANIZATIONS. The FCC's opinion is that this device by MANY ORGANIZATIONS isn't going to get their go ahead, because when a device fails, it should not puke all over the spectrum. MANY ORGANIZATIONS apparently disagree, for reasons I cannot really fathom.

Well, many countries were in the Coalition of the Looting that invaded Iraq, but it seems that it was all about the USA now, don't it? Microsoft is old in the game of gathering small fry to make their initiatives look like anything but what they are -- the usual takeover and squatting game.

Does anyone who is actually building these devices for the White Spaces Coalition? Is it in-house? A university? Telecom-equipment manufacturer? Is it based on Microsoft's KNOWS [microsoft.com]?
I never thought I'd be rooting for MS but on this fight I've got my fingers crossed for them.

Besides regular broadcast television, the TV spectrum is also used by public safety communications, wireless microphones, low-power TV, TV translators, and medical telemetry systems. Detecting whether a channel is in use is a real problem.

The system then interferes with licensed spectrum holders when there's a normal failure of the receivers in the real world too then, eh?Sounds like M$ is arguing against the thing, not for it. Since failures happen in the real-world too.

Frankly, the FCC is making billions of dollars (and not refunding anything back to the taxpayer) selling/auctioning rights to spectrum.

They're never going to give away "whitespace". They'll just wait until this dies down and then auction it off too. They just hadn't figur